Introducing
Melanie Zens: Melanie Zens is a non-denominational Christian. She has
been a Christian for more than a decade now and for the same time she
has been studying religion also. She is researching Quran also and the
best part of it is that she is learning Arabic to comprehend and
memorise Quran properly. She is also learning Greek which she requires
for NT studies. She is not a staunch critique of Islam or its prophet.
She takes a moderate approach between two extremes. She believes that
Jesus came to earth in a human body, his human body was killed, and
Jesus himself as a spirit went to sheol. He then rose back into his body
and sent his disciples out to preach the Gospel to the whole world and
then he ascended into heaven. She believes God created people for the
purpose of serving, worshiping, and personally coming to know him.

Melanie Zens' Rebuttal.

Saaib began his rebuttal by drawing into question the
reliability of any claims Jesus made in the Bible. He then argued that the
amount of people in Jesus' time who doubted his divinity is a basis for
rejecting the doctrine that Jesus is divine. From there, he brought up
statements that Jesus had made that would also suggest he isn't God. Lastly, he
commented on some of the passages that I brought up in my opening statement. I
hope to address these points now.
Saaib first attempts to detract from the strength of the Gospels by grouping
the 4 canonical ones in with the Gospel of Thomas (GThom), and the Gospel of
Judas (GoJ) as if they were somehow equal in measure of reliability, or even in
the same league as one another. On the contrary, the majority of scholars
consider both GThom and GoJ second century forgeries (and the copy we have of GoJ
is a 3rd or 4th century coptic translation.) In contrast, the 4 Gospels
Christians take seriously are dated around 100 years earlier than GThom and
GoJ, and have numerous attestation to their authorship from church fathers and
authors. GThom is mentioned as well of course, by the 3rd century church
writers Hippolytus and Origen, but they claim this writing is a forgery, and
GoJ is mentioned by the church author Irenaeus as being a heretical Gospel. To
even put these 2 in with the same category as the other 4 is, at best,
laughable.

Saaib would have us believe that the authors of the Gospels “built stories out
of traditions which had reached them from different people.” Actually, John,
Peter, and Matthew were close disciples of Jesus who followed him wherever he
went (though the author of John could also be John the Presbyter rather than
John the Apostle, but he was also an eyewitness to Jesus' life). Luke was a
doctor who diligently researched the evidence available to him and wrote a
carefully documented account of his own (and the fact that he provided a
genealogical record of Jesus' family should clue you in on how detailed and
accurate he wished his account to be). And Mark was a contemporary of Peter,
and wrote a Gospel off of everything he learned from him. That's not exactly
what I would term “traditional building”.

Then Saaib mentions that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels are not written
in Aramaic, so we cannot be certain as to the meaning of his words. A good
point. The authors of the Gospels at the time were living in Hebrew speaking,
or Greek speaking locations, and so they translated their work into those
languages. But although translation is not a good way to know word for word
what someone had said, the meaning of any teaching can be easily conveyed
through translation, and this is perhaps why Jesus used parables and examples
so often, so that the meaning of his words could be understood by anyone
anywhere. So I don't think this fact detracts from the accuracy of the Gospels.

This being said, I think we can conclude that Saaib's description of the
Gospels being “chaotic” and “uncertain” is unfair, nonsensical, and extremely
inaccurate. Now I will deal with the question as to the divine inspiration of
these Gospels. Saaib states that the authors of the Gospels do not claim it is
divinely inspired. The authors recorded the words and teachings and life of
God. Exactly how much more inspired can you get? Had they gone out of their way
to include a sentence like, “What I am writing is divinely inspired by God”
then readers would have been immediately skeptical. The author protests too
much me thinks.

Now we get into the verses that supposedly show Jesus is not God. Saaib
provides many cases in the Bible where people doubted Jesus, and somehow
believes this negates his divinity. If that's the case with Jesus, then since
many people doubted Muhammad was a Prophet of God, Muhammad must not be a
prophet of God. After all, if Muhammad could not convince the Jews over 1,000
years ago that he was sent by God, then how can Saaib hope to prove this to us
now? God must also not exist since many people do not believe in him. Is God
unable to convince us or what? The fact is, people will doubt no matter what
the circumstance. In the Old Testament, God had struck the Egyptians with many
plagues, including turning water into blood, and somehow the Israelites were
never affected by these plagues. Then he parted the seas before their very
eyes. Then he had Moses hit a rock and cause water to gush from it. Then he
sent bread to rain from the sky. Then he sent quail, and caused fish to wash up
from the seas. And yet still, whenever the Israelites faced a hardship, they
thought God had abandoned them, and wished he'd never brought them from Egypt.
They disbelieved again, and again. Likewise, Jesus performed countless
miracles, including healing a man born blind, which was supposed to be
something only the Messiah can do. The people had every reason to believe Jesus
was God and the Messiah. This is just the way people are, there will always be
doubters. People doubting a belief has no bearing on the truth value of it.

Saaib points out that Jesus was called a servant of God. If there is a problem
with one member of the Trinity of God serving the other member, then Saaib
needs to clarify what that problem is. He appears to have the misconception
that serving someone makes you inferior to them. He also tries to show that
Paul believes Jesus was created by quoting 1 Corinthians 8:6 (which says
nothing about Jesus being a creation) and Colossians 1:15, which says that
Jesus is the firstborn of creation. Paul probably did not intend for this title
to be taken literally though. He also says that he is the firstborn from among
the dead, but that doesn't mean he was born of the dead. Jesus is called the
Son of God, and the firstborn of this and that. But these titles are supposed
to show his supremacy. It doesn't mean that Jesus was ever given birth to, or
created.

Saaib quotes Jesus saying that the Father was greater than him. But at that
time the Father was in a greater position, since he was in heaven ruling the
earth, and Jesus was on earth in a weak human body. That doesn't mean Jesus'
nature is weaker than the Father's though. He then quoted Isaiah 43:11, showing
that in this case, the Father stated he was God. Why didn't Jesus communicate
this way on earth? According to Saaib, it's because Jesus was afraid. That
would indeed be ironic, being that Jesus on numerous occasions corrects and
rebukes the most respected people of that era, even calling them a brood of
vipers. Does that sound like a terrified person to you? After reading this
verse, I believe that it was Jesus speaking in this instance. Jesus is the only
one in the NT who is known as “Savior”, the Father has different titles. So
Jesus probably communicated in this, “I am God” way before. What changed when
he came to earth? Probably because directly stating that he is God, or that he
is the Messiah would have been seen as glorifying himself (which would have weakened
his ministry, just like asking for worship would) and it would have taken glory
from his Father.

Saaib states that the God of the OT was violent, and Jesus is loving. Jesus is
loving, but like I said, he did rebuke people authoritatively. But saying the
God of the OT was violent is taking everything from that time out of context.
In the OT, God was dealing with ancient, formerly enslaved, and barbaric
people, in a barbaric and war like period. Not the modern more morally advanced
Jews of Jesus' time. Jesus came at a peaceful time, God as a whole was with the
Israelites at a time of war, when opposing nations were attacking them, and
when God was using the Israelites to exact judgment on sinful nations. Saaib
should be able to understand this, as his own Prophet engaged in numerous wars,
and his God gave out very violent sounding orders (“and strike off the heads
and fingertips of them” 8:12). But it all needs to be taken in context.

Next, he quotes Jesus telling a man that none is good but God. And this is a
“clear” denouncement of his divinity according to Saaib. But Jesus does not
clearly state that he himself is not good. In this context Jesus is calling
into question the man's sincerity, and trying to make him realize what it is
that he is calling Jesus. Jesus is trying to make the man see that by calling
him good he is calling him God, but he isn't saying the man is wrong about
that.

Saaib says that when we look at Jesus we see all human qualities. Well we see
many human qualities when Jesus took on a human form, but as I pointed out, we
also see qualities only God may have. He says that God cannot be man, and man
cannot be God. Agreed, but God can take on a human body, though his nature is
divine spirit, and not human. He points out that Jesus didn't know some things.
Since the human brain with which Jesus functioned cannot have processed
infinite knowledge, Jesus functioned with finite knowledge, though his nature
was never lacking in this knowledge that his brain was. It is a distinction
between possessing finite knowledge, and functioning with finite knowledge.
Jesus was also never created, but he took on a created human shell. His body
was creation, but his spirit is eternal.

Saaib also shows that Jesus is differentiated between God, and God and Father
are used synonymously. But each member of the Trinity is called “God” or “Lord”
at one point. Since each member is part of God, they are each given this God
title. Consider Psalms 110:1: “The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit in the place of
honor at my right hand.” They are both called Lords, and Jesus is who sits at
the Fathers right.

And now to respond to the comments on my opening points, Saaib wonders why
Jesus had to be given his authority. Does not God always have authority on
heaven and earth? Firstly, he didn't actually address how it would be possible
for a human to ever have this power, secondly, Jesus didn't have this power
while on earth because he cannot rule everything and be in a limited form at
the same time. He handed the authority over, and it was handed back. But it can
only be handed back if he's divine. Saaib states that Matthew 28:19 is an
interpolation and wonders how I could dare use it. He doesn't attempt to argue
that it is, he simply states it as the case, and the “known” case, despite the
fact that virtually all copies of Matthew contain this verse. Since he was
running out of words, I'll forgive him for an unsupported assertion, but I see
no reason to address something that has been stated rather than argued and will
not make my opponent's arguments for him, and then attempt to address what he
never even stated. His objection will thus be ignored until he can support it.

I wish I could elaborate 10x more on each point I have now made, but am forced
to abandon you with this. Thanks to all who read this and to Saaib Ahmad for
publishing it. I am very much enjoying our debate thus far and I look forward
to Saaib's next response. Peace.